Safety Recall 22S41 - 2021-2022 Mach E - HVBJB Recall [high voltage battery main contactors may overheat]

[kltye]

Sigh, I wonder if this also means we won't be getting any charging curve improvements, if regular DCFC could already stress the HVBJB - even if it's "only" a 0.58% failure rate. On the other hand, why weren't they already monitoring a criticality 1 component's temperature?

Sponsored

 

[ZuleMME]

Doesn't a "software fix" feel like a bandaid? I mean if the part overheats to begin with, maybe the overall design spec is flawed?

It's exactly as I said pages and pages back. A hail mary play to attempt to mitigate the disaster of cost this hardware problem would bring. It's also intelligent. I just question if they really have a temperator sensor where it's needed or they are going to attempt to infer the temperature of these parts with data they do have.

 

[sotek2345]

Thank you for this, very informative.

Even if this OTA doesn't result in a reduction of power in every day driving (or even somewhat spirited driving), it does not bode well for us GT owners getting the 5 second limit lifted, ever.

Depends - if they cut the top level power back enough (say 600ftlbs to ~200ftlbs) for this issue, they may be able to get rid of the 5 second limit becuase the battery wouldn't heat up as much. Not that I like that solution.......

 

[buzznwood]

Only 286 out of 49,000 or 100,000, whatever way you look at it. This is very small. I’m glad Ford is acknowledging the problem with that small amount.

It may be 286 now but it is one of those issues that could easily snowball later on, you only have to see the people that have had it happen to on this forum, with some having it happen multiple times, some at higher mileages some at lower so for everyone it could simply be a case of not if but when, so better to get head before the PR gets even worse and it becomes another powershift debacle.

 

[Logal727]

Wow this is putting this into perspective way better. Glad Ford is acknowledging and fixing this rare issue.

 

[EELinneman]

I believe it is most of our opinions here the 5 second limit is due to the battery pack design. It just can't handle that kind of power output that long due to heat. Not gonna lie the bus bars and wires look really small to be handling 1000A+. They really should have made a GT specific battery pack IMO but hey thats expensive.

Ford will never admit it though

If Ford's solution in the GT and GTPE is to limit power, then they will have bought themselves a class action lawsuit. This might make them admit this, though I suspect they will just write checks and admit no fault. They will look like clowns in the performance auto world though.

 

[GrumblesTheDog]

We really can't say at this point. It could be a software issue that unintentionally pushes the hardware beyond its published limits. Fix the software issue, and you're fine. We don't know yet.

Agreed. The original notification was published maybe 48 hours ago? Now we have additional information on a mitigation step (which is coming soon) and I feel fairly confident that more and more info will come out over the next few days and weeks re hardware interventions.

I would think temperature is less useful than measuring resistance across the HV contactor (which I bet is much easier to do with all the existing monitoring equipment) which may be a sign of pitting/conductor damage and impending failure. Increased resistance? You get queued up for a new HVBJB. Normal? Carry on, nothing to see.

Even this is all speculation, so I'm going to continue driving (and scale back on the green light launches) and see what else we learn.

 

[RickMachE]

Um... does this meat us GT owners go from 5 seconds to 4 seconds of real performance? :/

Meat? What meat? I'm very confused.

 

[ZuleMME]

It may be 286 now but it is one of those issues that could easily snowball later on, you only have to see the people that have had it happen to on this forum, with some having it happen multiple times, some at higher mileages some at lower so for everyone it could simply be a case of not if but when, so better to get head before the PR gets even worse and it becomes another powershift debacle.

Exactly; this shouldn't be considered 0.5% of cars. This should be considered 0.5% per year...

 

[Mike G]

Here’s hoping the software update will be available to dealers prior to this to get those of us on delivery hold taken care of lol. Mine is at my dealer but I can’t get it until this is fixed. Fingers crossed!

I was just about to say...if this software fix has already been implemented at the plant...then why is it not pushed out to all vehicles via FDRS right now as a pending software update?

OTAs are one thing (scheduling and getting them in some sort of sequence to be delivered, etc.) but why would these two not be immediately available as module updates shown in the SW Updates list in FDRS for all affected MMEs?

Why are we waiting until July?

It's either critical...or it's not really....kinda, well maybe sorta.

 

[billy_at]

Meat? What meat? I'm very confused.

You didn't see the meat in the frunk? It's been there since you took delivery - I'd advise you freeze it soon.

 

[billy_at]

It's really quite a lot of meat:

 

[Logal727]

Exactly; this shouldn't be considered 0.5% of cars. This should be considered 0.5% per year...

Those odds still aren’t bad

 

[iankellogg]

Sigh, I wonder if this also means we won't be getting any charging curve improvements, if regular DCFC could already stress the HVBJB - even if it's "only" a 0.58% failure rate. On the other hand, why weren't they already monitoring a criticality 1 component's temperature?

This software fix sounds like either they had this in the car before and an update broke it or they never had it to start which makes me think ford is completely incompetent which does not make me feel good about keeping this car.

 

[Logal727]

We’re supposed to REMOVE the chicken wings from the frunk? No wonder it was overheating.

Sponsored