NHTSA investigating 2022 Mach-E HVBJB recall (high voltage battery main contactors)

[Maquis]

As I understand this, the "software fix" really wasn't a "fix" -- it was designed to catch faulty parts. Now the NTSB might determine that this method was inadequate and the parts are all faulty and should be recalled. From my reading, anyway.

It was described in the NHTSA recall document as a fix:

But we all called “BS” at the time.

Sponsored

 

[HuntingPudel]

I just hope Ford gets off of their butts and re-revises the part. The “more robust” part obviously isn’t robust enough based off of what we’ve seen from @scoopman @heisnuts and several others who either have cars produced after the new part was phased in or had new parts installed.

 

[OON7]

"Up to" 150kw. Always be wary of that old advertising trick. Also, I think it is the battery itself that may be the bottleneck, not necessarily the other components.

I've gotten up to 160 last few DCFC sessions, hope that doesn't mean my battery is going extra crispy!

 

[rolltide]

@Ford Motor Company please issue a hardware recall to replace these HVBJBs. This is unacceptable.

 

[superdave80]

@Ford Motor Company please issue a hardware recall to replace these HVBJBs. This is unacceptable.

The problem is that, even if the NHTSA forced them to replace them, the REPLACEMENTS are still failing from time to time. That's what this latest investigation is about.

 

[Maquis]

The problem is that, even if the NHTSA forced them to replace them, the REPLACEMENTS are still failing from time to time. That's what this latest investigation is about.

One would like to think that if NHTSA forced a hardware replacement, it would require documentation and testing that the replacement actually did something to correct the problem.

Takata airbags were not replaced with the same equipment, for example.

 

[Secret Sauce]

It was described in the NHTSA recall document as a fix:

But we all called “BS” at the time.

The last line is the key to whether it was being offered as a fix, and the key words are "further damage." The way I read this it can't be a "fix" if it only limits the damage to the part and allows you to limp the car to the dealership.

This is all so similar to the Bolt battery recall (which I also went through, lucky me). At first they tried a software solution. It wasn't supposed to "fix" the faulty battery cells but to detect them, so those batteries could be replaced instead of all of them. When the software failed to prevent all battery fires, GM was forced to replace every HV battery in every Bolt.

 

[Neil4Real]

The last line is the key to whether it was being offered as a fix, and the key words are "further damage." The way I read this it can't be a "fix" if it only limits the damage to the part and allows you to limp the car to the dealership.

This is all so similar to the Bolt battery recall (which I also went through, lucky me). At first they tried a software solution. It wasn't supposed to "fix" the faulty battery cells but to detect them, so those batteries could be replaced instead of all of them. When the software failed to prevent all battery fires, GM was forced to replace every HV battery in every Bolt.

Except it does not work as described and actually prevent further damage. It basically just turns it into a ticking time bomb.

 

[HuntingPudel]

Except it does not work as described and actually prevent further damage. It basically just turns it into a ticking time bomb.

True. A few people were not able to make it to their home areas after the SVS notification.

 

[AzCoronaDog]

My 2021 Mach-E is my wife's daily driver, with a 90 mile round trip commute.
We got the software update, and still got the HVBJB error. Car was drivable in reduced power mode, HVBJB was replaced.
Got the failure again about a month ago, car was still drivable with reduced power, and the HVBJV was replaced a second time. We were past the 36k mile warranty, so thankfully this is covered under the 100k mile drivetrain warranty.
Hoping that HVBJB #3 is the charm, but not holding my breath.
I mean, it's not like the battery connection is a big deal in an EV, right?

 

[DevSecOps]

But we all called “BS” at the time.

Not all did. Those of us that did call BS were lambasted by many forum members here. There were very heated exchanges.

Moving beyond that... One thing I find interesting in the RQ is that they call out what the software does. Apparently, it monitors the temperature of the contactors. Some forum members asserted with great certainty that it monitored resistance.

 

[heisnuts]

I think that is why engineering was so eager to have me run my routes with the data tracker. They wanted to see my exact conditions and roads that lead to failures of even the revised parts.

I am confident that is what is happening now, and I have a feeling my data is really only the starting point for their testing. I actually would not be surprised if I start seeing Ford EV's with manufacture plates out in my neck of the woods in the near future. Like I said in previous threads, I came away with the impression the engineering team is taking this issue very seriously and are working on updates.

 

[RickMachE]

Thanks, and here is the text describing the actual investigation. Note, the article doesn't really get it right. The covered vehicles (cars produced until May 24, 2022) received the software update as the recall remedy. The HVBJB wasn't replaced on the recalled vehicles, but only on the vehicles on which it actually failed. Presumably the NTSB will now be determining if the HVBJB should be replaced proactively on all of the recalled cars.

I think you're totally misunderstanding the investigation.

It pretty clearly says that 12 vehicles got the recall (software updated) and then the HVBJB failed. Therefore, was the recall (software updated to prevent failure) adequate?

I suspect the answer will be no, because a lot more than 12 failed.

 

[PrimeFuture]

ah yes... I'll need to brush up on my government speak. Only a regulator would think in terms of the year a recall was issued... sheesh.

Ehh... considering that a lot of recalls will cover numerous model years so it'd be silly to have to say each model year in the name. Like with the Ford Pinto, saying the 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976 Ford Pinto recall is ridiculous. It's better to call it the 1978 Ford Pinto recall, as that's the year Ford inititated the recall.

 

[KevinS]

Ehh... considering that a lot of recalls will cover numerous model years so it'd be silly to have to say each model year in the name. Like with the Ford Pinto, saying the 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976 Ford Pinto recall is ridiculous. It's better to call it the 1978 Ford Pinto recall, as that's the year Ford inititated the recall.

In that case, (1971-76) works, just like it does in many parts catalogs.

Sponsored