Glare Free High Beams AKA Adaptive Lighting -- evidence that US Mach E does not have the hardware for it

[jar_311]

Edited due to "Sensitivity":

After an exhaustive amount of research due to free time recovering from surgery, I am frustrated to tell you I am convinced the US Mach E does not have the hardware (one module I'll get into) necessary for Glare Free High Beams.

IF YOU HAVE ACTUAL SUPPORTED RESEARCH TO SUGGEST- PLEASE SHARE!!
OTHERWISE, THIS IS NOT YOUR FORUM TO RANT..& I WILL CALL YOU

After researching the "High LED" (Select and above trim) which operates GFHB (Glare Free High Beam) in Europe I am convinced:

• The headlight housing/construction & LED photometrics are identical in all markets. (Good ford)
• I believe the difference lies with the LED control module (The aluminum box that is attached to the bottom side of the headlight)(BAD FORD!)
• The "High LED" headlights in Germany, Norway, & Sweden are basically the same PN - less the 2 last letters signifying a revision code
  • European versions are "High LED ECE"
    • ECE is "group" or whatever you call them that regulates headlights in Europe
  • US versions are "High LED SAE"
    • SAE is very much an American "thing" I'm surprised is does not say "DOT"
      • SAE should be ashamed for having their designation on these US headlights as any "engineer" knows the design could have been much, much SAFER.

From what I've found the LED Modules are: (not accounting for PN revisions) (From what I can tell both have the same pin outs)

• US: LJ8Z-13C788-A
• Europe: LJ8B-13B626-BD ?

There is also a software component to this as well:

In the below Excel file you can see what I've attempted coding wise, leading to my opinion regard the above LED Driver:

https://1drv.ms/x/s!Aq1Lr9iL-BdpggprrxOO5gO2Y2SD

1. I first found (2) European Mach E(s), took the VIN#(s), and then the compared the "As Built Data" to My 22 GT
2. I loosely crossed referenced an already established Forscan list from an F150 forum
3. I compared my as built to the European car(s)
4. I tried options that looked like they would work:
   1. Worked: APIM (Got the Glare Free & Left/Right traffic menu to appear in Sync) the headlights and IPC also responded to the inputs
   2. Worked: IPC (Got the Auto GFHB symbol to work)
   3. Worked: IPMA (Got IPMA to accept the GFHB code without triggering a CCM (blue cruise) error) PS. Had to contact Forscan for new version 2.3.50
   4. Not so much work: HCM(I copied the "As built" from the Swedish or Norway Mach E and got a "Check Headlamp System Manual" message in the gauge cluster)
      1. Forscan DTC states "Configuration not-compatible/ incomplete"
   5. Not so much work: SCCM: (I couldn't copy the European as built because the Euro cars have an additional "LIM" button on the right of the steering wheel) Not sure which code controls the button's CAN communications, but I tried several variations but I always was returned with the DTC of "Incompatible configuration" The other problem is... Europe does not have Blue Cruise..

At this point despite the coding changes - the car continues to operate in auto-high beam (on/off) Although the high beam activation is gradual and not instant on/off. This is why I believe it's the LED module.

The low-beams appear to be brighter when selecting "Right-Hand Traffic" in Sync.

I would buy/import the module to confirm my suspicions, but frankly I don't drive that much at night.


Writers opinions below:

I don't think ford is the best managed automaker (by far).. (PS look at their warranty reserves on their balance sheet)

Considering each headlight assembly retails for $1,666, frankly I find it BS... regardless of DOT regulations..

Background - My last BMW 5 Series did not have this option enabled, but all the hardware was the same as "ROW" (Rest of world) cars. I was able to enable to feature through ESYS.

It appears as if Ford decided to have multiple LED modules for the Mach E. Why you ask is that an issue??

• Every automaker (Apparently less Ford) knows more PN's = More cost & less profit
  • More inventory, mare parts to manage, more parts to replace, less economies of scale that can be reached (Volume production) etc.
  • Electronic modules are uniquely positioned to take advantage of software coding for specific markets.. aka turning off things ole' fuddy duddy DOT does not want you to have (Before 2023).

I was just really annoyed I couldn't activate this feature - knowing all these European people get to benefit from enhanced safety, while we can not. Again "SAE" SMH.....

Thank you in advance for sparing me from your unnecessary commentary.

Sponsored

 

[macchiaz-o]

but frankly I don't drive that much at night.

Wow.

There are quite a few other safety differences between NA and EU Mach-Es for you to also start investigating... Additional airbags, detaching hood, etc. Happy holidays!

 

[Mach-Lee]

Thanks for the efforts. I think you will have to reflash the HCM with the European software, just the As-Built change probably isn't enough.

 

[jar_311]

Thanks for the efforts. I think you will have to reflash the HCM with the European software, just the As-Built change probably isn't enough.

Have you done this?
I do not have access to FDRS so this is why I ask.

 

[Mach-Lee]

Have you done this?
I do not have access to FDRS so this is why I ask.

FDRS won't apply non-standard software. You can do module programming in FORScan if you know what you're doing but it can be risky.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Much ado about nothing.

 

[Obie]

Now that I'm off my rant of why you should NOT be investing in Ford..

A car is, at most, a depreciating asset or a liability. It’s not an investment.

But to say that you should not buy a car simply because you cannot enable a feature that was only allowed in the US per NHTSA of Feb 2022 is a bit if an overreaction. Really sounds like you’re looking for reasons to bash to Company by cherry picking issues.

 

[jar_311]

A car is, at most, a depreciating asset or a liability. It’s not an investment.

But to say that you should not buy a car simply because you cannot enable a feature that was only allowed in the US per NHTSA of Feb 2022 is a bit if an overreaction. Really sounds like you’re looking for reasons to bash to Company by cherry picking issues.

Referring to company shares.. not the vehicle.
Thanks.

 

[jar_311]

FDRS won't apply non-standard software. You can do module programming in FORScan if you know what you're doing but it can be risky.

The version of forscan I have does not support firmware changes to any Mach E modules. Maybe you have a different version?

 

[su-ch+mache]

@jar_311 if you like I could send you an EU module for further investigations. just drop me a PN

by the way ECE means Economic Commission for Europe
it is symbolized by

the numbers represent the origin of production

 

[HuntingPudel]

Referring to company shares.. not the vehicle.
Thanks.

The argument that more part numbers costs more is irrelevant if the added part number of the less expensive item is sold in high enough quantities that it at least offsets the engineering, storage, and doc costs of the added SKU. Apparently, Ford sells enough Premium and GT models in the US to make that so. Were it not so, the Select in the US would be sporting the same headlights as the EU cars. I think that company shares would be affected negatively if Ford didn’t use multiple part numbers across the various models.

 

[jar_311]

The argument that more part numbers costs more is irrelevant if the added part number of the less expensive item is sold in high enough quantities that it at least offsets the engineering, storage, and doc costs of the added SKU. Apparently, Ford sells enough Premium and GT models in the US to make that so. Were it not so, the Select in the US would be sporting the same headlights as the EU cars. I think that company shares would be affected negatively if Ford didn’t use multiple part numbers across the various models.

Thank you for your insight... Your're clearly more educated in the subject than I! I must now resign my position in supply chain management and cost benefit analysis. How could I have been such a simpleton to not have considered your clearly more educated arguments??!!? After all I am a just a humble Mustang person..

Kind regards,

 

[jar_311]

Much ado about nothing.

Hi Friend, I believe your cat may have ran across your keyboard?

If you have contributing and productive commentary please by all means share..

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Hi Friend, I believe your cat may have ran across your keyboard?

If you have contributing and productive commentary please by all means share..

Don’t be snarky. You do know how forum search? This was covered less than a month ago in another thread. In detail.

 

[FullyCharged]

Thank you for your insight... Your're clearly more educated in the subject than I! I must now resign my position in supply chain management and cost benefit analysis. How could I have been such a simpleton to not have considered your clearly more educated arguments??!!? After all I am a just a humble Mustang person..

Kind regards,

It made zero sense for Ford to build in more expensive hardware on the chance regulations change and they could “unlock” the new feature set. Would have been nice, but the numbers don’t add up. The prior poster was exactly right… any advantage from part rationalization would recover just a fraction of the design related cost increase to go to the more advanced headlight designs. Perhaps the world of aerospace is different when the volumes are much lower. Not going to be the case in the world of automotive. Not even close. And I speak from experience in vehicle engineering, procurement, and product management. As an FYI many OEM’s consider the cost to carry a part is in the $2,000 to $5,000 range per year. Rather inexpensive compared to the actual annual spend on a part, and the difference in extended cost between a lower cost design and a higher cost design.

I do sincerely appreciate the thoroughness of your dive into the topic though. Quite impressive and tenacious... I’d not have had the stomach for it myself. The conclusions were just based on some flawed assumptions.

Sponsored