MME GT Bricked!

[Ro4dR4ge]

UPDATE 7/9/22: My GT is fixed and back at home as of today. Just over 2 weeks duration. Ford rep prioritized my part order (THANKS!) Here's a clip from the service order, if anyone is interested. Doesn't say anything about a software update:

Sponsored

 

[LectricGT]

Consider yourself lucky. Mine took just over 4 weeks.

I'm trying to build a dataset of HVBJB failures with several attributes to provide some insight for members. If you've experienced this failure (e.g. "Stop Safely Now" and the vehicle towed to the dealership) please consider posting in this thread:

https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/hvbjb-becm-repair-turnaround-times-data-collection.19451/

Thanks!

 

[scoopman]

UPDATE 7/9/22: My GT is fixed and back at home as of today. Just over 2 weeks duration. Ford rep prioritized my part order (THANKS!) Here's a clip from the service order, if anyone is interested. Doesn't say anything about a software update:

Unfortunately @Ro4dR4ge, this part number is THE OLD PART that is defective, and if it is what is in your car, IT IS NOT EVEN THE CORRECT ONE FOR YOUR MODEL! Please confirm with the dealer that they ordered a part that began with the letter N and not the letter L and that this work order is a typo.

I was told you cannot even order the wrong part anymore but it appears your dealer might have done so.

If you look here, first post "Revised Part Numbers:" https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...ers-biggest-fear-facts-and-info-thread.18143/

The current part number your dealer should have ordered is " NK4Z-10C666-C fits both the AWD and the GT and it replaces LK9Z-10C666-A and NK4Z-10C666-B"

The part number you list above, LK9Z 10C666-B is the old part for RWD which may have even less robustness in its connectors because it is not spec'd for the larger battery and dual motor power higher power output.

If the part number above is accurate, there's a chance you're going to have the same defect reoccur (like it did to me only 3 months and 1300 mi later), or more worrisome, you are in for an even worse problem because the part they might have put in was never engineered for your model and power output.

 

[Ro4dR4ge]

I mean Ford isn't gonna install an old, problematic, piece of hardware in a car now that a new version is released. Just like if you order the old number, you should automatically get the new one.

....One would think so, but....

 

[Ro4dR4ge]

I spoke to the dealer service rep and he says my VIN isn't part of the recall, so they replaced the connector with the original style LK9Z. They also failed to do a software upgrade. He clearly didn't know anything about this issue or the fix. Waiting for a call back from Ford.

 

[scoopman]

I spoke to the dealer service rep and he says my VIN isn't part of the recall, so they replaced the connector with the original style LK9Z. They also failed to do a software upgrade. He clearly didn't know anything about this issue or the fix. Waiting for a call back from Ford.

Ugh. Did you explain to the dealer that they also used the wrong old part that isn't designed for the GT?

 

[Ro4dR4ge]

Ugh. Did you explain to the dealer that they also used the wrong old part that isn't designed for the GT?

Yes, I did. He thought I was accusing them of putting the old failed part back in the car. I explained that Ford came out with a new upgraded part, and that is what they needed to use. His response was "Uhhh, but I don't show a recall on your VIN." I also asked him is that was even the correct part for my GTPE, and he said it was. He tried to tell me it was still the same part number. I explained that would NEVER be the case, as they intentionally create new part numbers to tell the difference between old and new generations. They have absolutely no idea what they are doing.

I'm gonna go back to driving my 68 Camaro.

 

[LectricGT]

The dealership is "wrapping up" my HVBJB replacement. I asked the question today about the part number, to which the service manager showed me "10C666" written on an RO. I explained that there's basically two variants and several revisions of both. He also came back and said that the full part number installed is a LK9Z 10C666-B ?

Really. Who is messing this up this badly?



I see it as three possibilities:

1. The dealership requests a "10C666" and Ford sends them whatever. With no one really checking anything.

2. Ford is just trying to expedite repairs to prevent repairs from aging into lemon law territory, so they're shoveling out the door whatever stock to patch things up until "next time."

3. (and this is unlikely) We're just confused on what part numbers go to which.


Mine's been in the shop since June 10th. I guess I just roll the dice and anticipate it happening again. ?

 

[machEfan1]

It feels frankly insulting that part of the recall chastises the driver for using “wide open throttle”.

This is a $60,000 Mustang. Of course people want to floor it! The car is fun and people want to enjoy it.

It seems likely to me that Ford is trying to delay the inevitable recall of all HVBJBs. I understand that they are affected by supply chain issues, and that the Mach E is losing money for them because of rising production costs.

However, this is axpensive car and we deserve to have a vehicle that works without having to worry that it will just spontaneously shutdown one day.

 

[phil]

It feels frankly insulting that part of the recall chastises the driver for using “wide open throttle”.

I did not feel chastised. Nor would I accept any chastisement.

I think they were just explaining what their problem was, i.e., in what situations their part is inadequate.

 

[Mach1E]

I did not feel chastised. Nor would I accept any chastisement.

I think they were just explaining what their problem was, i.e., in what situations their part is inadequate.

Agreed.

It’s at least acknowledging the problem.

DC charging is listed as well. They aren’t going to chastise people for charting their cars.

 

[Regularmache]

Well if your feeling chastised and haven't gotten your car yet I would not buy from someone that is chastising me or making me feel insulted.

I didn't take the notice as anything but descriptive.

 

[Ro4dR4ge]

I heard back from Ford this morning. Dealer says they followed procedure in contacting Ford Warranty Dept, who sent them the replacement part. They insist the LZ9Z is the correct replacement. Of course, I don't know if it was verified by VIN, or model or what information was communicated between the dealer service dept and the Ford Warranty group. I also wonder what the source of part # info is in this forum. Possible that someone got bad info in the beginning, and we've all accepted it as truth? Other conspiratorial possibility is that Ford is switching up the part number to obfuscate the fix. This way we cant tell if they used and obsolete or upgraded part.

I did a part search by VIN, and according to Ford, the correct part number is 10C666, but it shows on back order.

It says the part used as a replacement for my car (LK9Z-10C666B) is "obsolete or invalid"

Also, no recalls listed for my car and no software updates related to HVBJB. It seems to work ok.
I no longer give a damn and will contact a good attorney when it fails again.

Case number is closed.

 

[scoopman]

@Ro4dR4ge what awesome F%$d dealer was this one at in SoCal so we can all learn to avoid them?

Sponsored