5 second limit explained?

[mkhuffman]

People say, "The more you know...". However, sometimes that can actually be a disadvantage, and one can get anxiety over things like this and the high voltage battery junction box...

Absolutely "ignorance is bliss". I am sure I would have noticed the power throttling on my own, but definitely it would have taken a while and I might not have cared as much as I do now.

Which isn't much, by the way. I have little need to floor it at 80 mph, and once I hit 72 mph from zero I am likely breaking the law, so I slow down on my own anyway. I have never been to a track or to a drag strip.

That said, Ford needs to do something to make it better. But if they never do, it won't change how much I enjoy driving my car. Maybe that is why they are unlikely to do anything for us.

Sponsored

 

[Thor2j]

This doesn't make sense. Yes, any model can be effected by the HVBJB weakness, but the failures appear to be connected with putting stress on the box, which is why it appears that GT models are more impacted by the problem. You cannot blithely say "not connected" just because some non-GTs have been impacted.

Ford is highly unlikely to allow GTs to put the HVBJB under even more stress, unless they replace with a more robust part.

Sorry you don't understand how this all works. The 5 second rule is obviously not for the junction box if 450 amps can take it out.

 

[Mirak]

Sorry you don't understand how this all works. The 5 second rule is obviously not for the junction box if 450 amps can take it out.

You are oversimplifying. This is not a binary issue. It is about strain over time.

 

[Mach1E]

You are oversimplifying. This is not a binary issue. It is about strain over time.

Or it’s a poorly manufactured part and some are destined to fail while others won’t.

We don’t know. But apparently Ford does and in the two years of being completely silent on the issue the first time they said anything out loud was to tell us they’re going to up the limit and still keep it reliable for the warranty.

At this point no need to speculate. It’s just a matter of whether or not you believe Ford. I choose to for a few reasons- They have more info than we do. They haven’t given me reason not to. And it gives me hope because it’s literally the 1 change I want in the car via OTA.

On a related note- I don’t understand why people who don’t own a GT are so skeptical. They don’t even have a dog in the fight. No need to dash our hopes and dreams.

 

[OcSteve39]

Delimiting doesn't seem important or useful at all, especially when you can already go 0-60 in 3.5 seconds?

But I guess it matters to somebody springing for a “GT Performance” model. It’s just funny that this is such a popular topic. Must have a whole lotta GT folks here.

Sprung

 

[winbatch]

Texted with ford this morning. Definitely not indicating anything I’d coming any time soon.

 

[Mach1E]

Texted with ford this morning. Definitely not indicating anything I’d coming any time soon.

Lol

Definitive answer……… from an AI bot.

You’re better off asking Siri or Alexa. Or looking in a fortune cookie or magic 8 ball.

 

[dtbaker61]

You are oversimplifying. This is not a binary issue. It is about strain over time.

exactly.....
electronics definitely accumulate damage from extended high temps. contactors are sealed containers with inert gas inside to suppress arcs when opened/closed under load, and thermal stress and cycling is generally what can kill them.

the real fix is to control the temps, which will require a sensor and chill-plate inside the HVBJB, which will require modification to the battery coolant plumbing and tray itself, not just beefier contactors.

until there is a sensor inside the HVBJB right on the contactors, my bet is that the calculated power-time throttling will remain in place.

 

[Mach1E]

until there is a sensor inside the HVBJB right on the contactors, my bet is that the calculated power-time throttling will remain in place.

Why?

Adding a sensor isn’t on the table.

What is is Ford directly saying “we will change that limit” via OTA after “extensive testing.”

Did you watch the interview with Darren Palmer where he said this a couple months ago?

Again, it comes down to two choices-

1. You believe Ford

2. You think they were lying

There is no “option 3.” It’s binary at this point.

 

[tuminatr]

Agreed, it's really subjective. I have owned 22 vehicles in my lifetime and only a few stand out as my favorites. Up until the GTPE, the Lincoln MKZ was my favorite. It was smooth, quiet, and comfortable. My second favorite was the Mazda CX-5. It was just a fun vehicle to drive and I really enjoyed it. Now with the GTPE, it's my new favorite. I love the looks, love the comfort, it's fun to drive, and as you said, it's quick. I got the PE for MagneRide and the seats. If the Premium had those as an option I would probably be just as happy with it.

Ironic, my favorite two cars I owned are my 2013 MKZ Reserve. I had one of the very rare ones that came with Pilot Sport summer tires from the factory. My favorite suv up to this point was my Mazda CX7 turbo

 

[dtbaker61]

Why?

Adding a sensor isn’t on the table.

What is is Ford directly saying “we will change that limit” via OTA after “extensive testing.”

Did you watch the interview with Darren Palmer where he said this a couple months ago?

Again, it comes down to two choices-

1. You believe Ford

2. You think they were lying

There is no “option 3.” It’s binary at this point.

extensive testing may enable refinement on the software calculations and allow a little more power for longer if Ford decides it doesn't risk drivetrain warranty.

My opinion is that the REAL fix is 'option 3', which must include a sensor at the problem site, with direct measurement feedback to revised software that clamps power based on actual rather than calculated temps. Furthermore, the only way to lower temps (in the sealed HVBJB) is to re-engineer and improve the cooling by adding a chill plate and modifying the plumbing.

Is it 'likely'..... no.
would it be a real fix.... yes

for those of us that have the current HVBJB, I doubt Ford would volunteer a new and improved HVBJB and battery tray since they will just leave us with the software calculated limiter.

My HOPE would be that future model years get a re-designed HVBJB, with cooling and sensor, and even better if that HVBJB would purchasable as a 'performance upgrade' for '21-'23s

 

[AKgrampy]

extensive testing may enable refinement on the software calculations and allow a little more power for longer if Ford decides it doesn't risk drivetrain warranty.

My opinion is that the REAL fix is 'option 3', which must include a sensor at the problem site, with direct measurement feedback to revised software that clamps power based on actual rather than calculated temps. Furthermore, the only way to lower temps (in the sealed HVBJB) is to re-engineer and improve the cooling by adding a chill plate and modifying the plumbing.

Is it 'likely'..... no.
would it be a real fix.... yes

for those of us that have the current HVBJB, I doubt Ford would volunteer a new and improved HVBJB and battery tray since they will just leave us with the software calculated limiter.

My HOPE would be that future model years get a re-designed HVBJB, with cooling and sensor, and even better if that HVBJB would purchasable as a 'performance upgrade' for '21-'23s

Just thinking here but I believe people are focusing too much on the HVBJB. If I recall correctly the 5 sec limitation was forced on Ford by the battery manufacturer. This limitation was in place well before the HVBJB issue reared its head. I am not going to argue as to whether lifting the 5 sec programming will affect the old/new HVBJB but there certainly is more to the situation. There is also limited information on the failure rate of the updated HVBJB so no real idea of how well it is performing with the beefier contactors. Agree that active cooling is probably needed to really solve the problem

 

[Mach1E]

extensive testing may enable refinement on the software calculations and allow a little more power for longer if Ford decides it doesn't risk drivetrain warranty.

My opinion is that the REAL fix is 'option 3', which must include a sensor at the problem site, with direct measurement feedback to revised software that clamps power based on actual rather than calculated temps. Furthermore, the only way to lower temps (in the sealed HVBJB) is to re-engineer and improve the cooling by adding a chill plate and modifying the plumbing.

Is it 'likely'..... no.
would it be a real fix.... yes

for those of us that have the current HVBJB, I doubt Ford would volunteer a new and improved HVBJB and battery tray since they will just leave us with the software calculated limiter.

My HOPE would be that future model years get a re-designed HVBJB, with cooling and sensor, and even better if that HVBJB would purchasable as a 'performance upgrade' for '21-'23s

For sure more sensors, better cooling, more robust hardware………. All would be an ideal fix.

But this isn’t about that.

This is about Ford increasing the limit with the current hardware OTA.

And either they will, or they’re liars.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

For sure more sensors, better cooling, more robust hardware………. All would be an ideal fix.

That is a topic for model year 2025, or whenever model refresh occurs. It’ll be interesting to see if there’s a different limit on the Rally next year. That’d be a possible indicator of the refresh configuration.

In the meantime, the current limit is the appropriate topic of conversation. Actual numbers seem to be hard to come by and adjective descriptions are a bit fuzzy.

 

[Bueller]

Like moths to a flame, it’s literally the same 6-8 guys working overtime to convince other MME owners there’s a real world problem.

Sponsored