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

[jlauro]

Regardless of timeframe, 0.5% is a HUGE defect rate in modern quality control systems. Combined with the severity, this was almost certainly a brown pants moment on the inside.

Not great, but wouldn't call it HUGE. For example, it's better than yearly failure rate of both HDD drives and SSD drives.

Sponsored

 

[WSoxFan22]

I ordered November 11, 2022 and I was told 2.99% APR for 60 months. The finance guy at the dealership didn't know anything about the options plan (and I'm still not sure if I'm eligible for it where I live - Indiana). May I see this eligibility sheet?

see attachment above. hope this helps.

again, i just requested options. but there are more details you could request.

 

[hawkeye3point1]

I time my passes based upon what my car can offer for acceleration. If I’m in the middle of a pass and it decides to cut power, that creates a dangerous condition for me.

Good point, this is why I predict that Non-GT models will inherit the Power Bars, driven by contactor monitoring, with the S/W update.

 

[joely]

Not great, but wouldn't call it HUGE. For example, it's better than yearly failure rate of both HDD drives and SSD drives.

I guess I'm conflating defect rates with failure rates. We don't know what the underlying defect rate is (or if it's a design or manufacturing defect, but sounds like design).

 

[Mike G]

see attachment above. hope this helps.

again, i just requested options. but there are more details you could request.

 

[silverelan]

I guess I'm conflating defect rates with failure rates. We don't know what the underlying defect rate is (or if it's a design or manufacturing defect, but sounds like design).

Actually, we do know the defect rate. It’s 100%.

 

[Jimbo]

Not to speak for him, but probably because that's what the recall describes as the remedy.

"The updated SOBDMC software... will monitor contactor temperature and intelligently reduce battery power to prevent damage to the contactor. The updated BECM software... will monitor contactor resistance to identify an overheated contactor and reduce vehicle power to prevent further damage."​

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22V412-2331.PDF​

They don't say the updated software limits maximum power draw, or anything of the kind. They say it intelligently monitors temperature and resistance to identify problem conditions and reduce battery power in those scenarios to prevent damage. Seems pretty clear to me.

My point is that it's not every time a contactor gets hot that it fails. Ford admits as such in the recall:

The design and part-to-part variation of the high voltage battery main
contactor is not robust to the heat generated during DC fast charging and
multiple wide open pedal events

But the solution, rather than to replace the part they admit isn't robust, is to throttle whenever the contactor gets above a certain temperature.

Is that threshold temperature one that is *only* seen by contactors that are already failing, in which case meh, or is it one that even healthy contactors will see after two WOTs/ten minutes of DCFC? We'll see

 

[Melancholy1980]

I had a build date of week of 5/23 and was notified this morning by Ford that my vehicle has shipped with an expected delivery of 8/13 - 8/19. Am I to assume that this will be delivered with the recall issue already resolved?

 

[moparguy]

Remedy:

" The updated SOBDMC software (LJ98-14G069-AXG, LJ98-14G069-AZG, LJ98-14G069-BBG, LJ98-14G069-BDG) will monitor contactor temperature and intelligently reduce battery power to prevent damage to the contactor. The updated BECM software (NJ98-14C197-AE, NJ98-14C197-BD) will monitor contactor resistance to identify an overheated contactor and reduce vehicle power to prevent further damage "

This is annoying, it's clearly defective contactors or defective poor-quality hardware was used, instead of fixing the bad hardware, looks like Ford is taking a shortcut exactly like Chevy did with the Bolt, this is obviously won't affect the guys with a Select, but those with a GT like me, looks like going to suffer the most

 

[machefan]

This is a dangerous ”fix” though it makes sense as a backup safety feature, to monitor temps like that. I spend lots of time driving two lane rural highways and frequently passing other cars. I time my passes based upon what my car can offer for acceleration. If I’m in the middle of a pass and it decides to cut power, that creates a dangerous condition for me. Not at all a fan of this approach…if the HVBJB is prone to faults it needs to be redesigned and replaced.

Not sure I agree, the idea is to limit before that happens, not after the fact to protect. Stopping the MME knowingly from accelerating would be a dangerous fix. Who knows... time will tell I guess.

 

[Electric Goat]

Just curious if anyone who has had this issue can confirm that they have a lead foot and/or have DCFC prior to receiving the error message.

Glad to hear there were no injuries

*raises hand*

I've owned sports cars all of my life and now I'm at the point where I want sports car like performance with the utility of a crossover.

I have a lead food and I drive in a manner that some might consider aggressive.

I try to make my daily commute both fun (for me) and safe (for those around me). I also like to road rally with my friends. Rally driving behavior is stressful to any car but I'm pretty disappointed with stamina of my Mach-E GT.

I feel like the Mach-E GT and GTPE were an afterthought and they were never designed for drivers like me. I should have been skeptical I am not going to change how I drive my GT especially since ford will be covering 100% of the bill for 8 years/100,000 miles if the HVBJB fails again. By that time there will be much better and authentic "Grand Touring" options out there. The MME GT is just not engineered to hang with the big dogs on a rally yet.

With that all of that said, the answer is yes. I have driven with WOT then hit a DC fast charger then hit WOT again. I've done two multi-state drives in this manner (10 hours each way) for a total of 20 hours. The car did not get a rest. It's a GT. It should be engineered to handle multi-state road trips with little to no stopping. If the car wasn't moving then it was fast charging. If it wasn't fast charging then it was moving. Ford should have tested the car extensively and this should have been caught before the first GT was sold.

Ford will probably be putting in the new HVBJB in my car again because it will probably fail again because of their sub-par engineering. Good thing the feds locked in a mandatory 8 year/100k warranty.

 

[buzznwood]

I highly doubt Ford deliberately chose a part that was not fit for purpose. Why would they do that, it costs them more down there line. Also, every single car manufacturer (likely with the exception of super cars or high-end performance vehicles) chooses parts based on the accountant. No manufacturer is going to over-spec a part just because and increase the manufacturing cost of the car. As an engineer, there are plenty of safety factors built in such that parts are not chosen on the borderline of the specs. Point is, every component in the Mach E had to be approved by an accountant. This is actually a good thing, our cars would be far more expensive if just built by the engineers.

While I agree that nobody is going to waste money on over engineering a part they need to at least pick one that is up to the task 100% of the time and Ford has a very sorry history of using parts that are not, that they then either replace with parts that are in later model years or try and avoid the issue in the hope it will be neutralized through warranty repairs as they figure the issue may not impact everyone.

My focus ST had a TSB for the rear motor mount, because some bean counter thought they could get away with using the same mount from the lower spec trims, but as the ST engine has more power and torque the weaker mount would allow excessive movement of the engine when accelerating and changing gear to the point it would all the turbo to smack the firewall. so it was replaced with a mount more suited to the task that then became standard on later model years,

This is not some one off , crap like this happens all the time with Fords there is bean counting then there is Ford bean counting. I have owned enough Fords over the years to go in eyes wide open, so I class being able to get through the first year of ownership without some engineering gaff rearing it's head as a bonus and at present the list of vehicles that have managed to do so is very small

 

[RosarioM]

Meat? What meat? I'm very confused.

I meant mean but now I’m not changing it because meat is funnier.

 

[Pushrods&Capacitors]

Good point, this is why I predict that Non-GT models will inherit the Power Bars, driven by contactor monitoring, with the S/W update.

What if we uncover the fact that this very failure mode was known to Ford, and therefore, the reason for the grey bars and GT 5 second limit to begin with? Any lawsuit discovery period would get ahold of docs/emails that may show this.

Also, if all MMEs get grey bars our 4X is gone, not having that with our penchant for acceleration and high speeds (85-95+) on TX toll roads.

 

[HuntingPudel]

I meant mean but now I’m not changing it because meat is funnier.

Meat is not funny. Dogs like meat.

Sponsored